The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:25 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Zosimus wrote:Well, then, since no one chooses to defend the video, I declare victory.

Was there a debate? Seems like it just poped up out of nowhere.

I hate it when things pope and no one informs me.

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:28 am

Nobrot wrote:
Zosimus wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Zosimus wrote: ... Why don't you enroll in one of my logic classes? It would probably help you a great deal.


I'm up for it. As long as you promise not to slide around any longer like a freshly-caught cod. Off you go then - Logic 101 courtesy of Zosimus. I'm sure we'll all benefit.

Fine. Go to http://www.apexgmat.com/ scroll down to the bottom, click contact us, and fill out the form. In comments put, "I'd like the critical reasoning course, please! Can the Peruvian be my teacher?"

150% Money Back Guarantee

Where do sign up?

Well, first of all, the assumption of the site is that you are going to take a logic test such as the critical reasoning part of the GMAT or the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT test. What we have here is a bunch of people sitting around congratulating themselves on their fine logic in a big pseudo-circle jerk. Meanwhile, I took a standardized critical reasoning test and scored 100 percent.

The 150% money back guarantee assures you that your score will definitely improve on a standardized logic test.

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The idea that skeptics nod in unison is, of course, quite correct. So do scientists.

The reason is simple. Both skeptics and scientists require credible evidence to support our belief systems.

Oh, is that so? Prescriptive evidentialism, eh? Well, let's take a look at this claim.

First of all, it's not possible for anything to be backed up by evidence. Even assuming that you could gather conclusive evidence to support proposition 'p' that evidence must surely be based on other beliefs (the telescope is accurate, my brain works, I read the numbers correctly, my math is right, etc.). Those beliefs must also be backed up by evidence. And the beliefs that back up those beliefs must also be evidence-based. On and on until eventually you will reach something that is not backed up by evidence. It's called the "infinite regress problem."

Furthermore, what logical reason do you have to suppose that evidence can support a belief?

Let T = the theory of "T" and E = the evidence.

If T is true, then E will be observed.
E has been observed.
So you conclude that T is supported by the evidence.

But is it?

What if the theory T = Bill Gates owns a diamond mine.
and the evidence = Bill Gates is rich.

Does finding more and more evidence that Bill Gates is rich really make it more and more likely that Bill Gates owns a diamond mine? Or are you just committing the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy?

Finally, it seems that what you are saying is that theories that are supported by evidence are better than theories that are unsupported by evidence.

Yet what evidence do you have to support that idea? According to your own rules, your beliefs should be evidenced based. Let's see some evidence for the unsupported claims you've made.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17997
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:39 am

Zosimus wrote:
Nobrot wrote:
Zosimus wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Zosimus wrote: ... Why don't you enroll in one of my logic classes? It would probably help you a great deal.


I'm up for it. As long as you promise not to slide around any longer like a freshly-caught cod. Off you go then - Logic 101 courtesy of Zosimus. I'm sure we'll all benefit.

Fine. Go to http://www.apexgmat.com/ scroll down to the bottom, click contact us, and fill out the form. In comments put, "I'd like the critical reasoning course, please! Can the Peruvian be my teacher?"

150% Money Back Guarantee

Where do sign up?

Well, first of all, the assumption of the site is that you are going to take a logic test such as the critical reasoning part of the GMAT or the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT test. What we have here is a bunch of people sitting around congratulating themselves on their fine logic in a big pseudo-circle jerk. Meanwhile, I took a standardized critical reasoning test and scored 100 percent.

The 150% money back guarantee assures you that your score will definitely improve on a standardized logic test.


Way to snare customers, genius.


Oh wait, you're used to performing your sales spiel elsewhere, I guess...

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:01 am

Zosimus wrote: it seems that what you are saying is that theories that are supported by evidence are better than theories that are unsupported by evidence.
Yes.

Please donate $100 to the Skeptic Society, with evidence you have done so, before we continue tutoring you in basic logic. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:52 am

Poor logic skills by Zosimus
In essence, Zosimus has made the basic logic mistake of assuming the only forms of life that can exist are the forms of life we see today, as a result of the actual environment that life, we know of, has arisen.

Zosimus wrote:. Since there are 200 known parameters, each of which must be set to within a narrow band, the odds seem somewhat against it.
So if the parameters were different, you are denying that a different form of life could have arisen, in all variations of those same parameters? How did you conclude that?

Zosimus wrote:. the universe, we have some 200 variables that seem remarkably well adjusted.
Try again son. You are saying the obvious and ignoring the logical conclusion, that the life forms that evolved today in our universe's parameters is unique to those parameters. That doesn't mean a universe with different parameters won't allow for another sort of life to arise in that unique environment.

Zosimus wrote:.Well, what if you had a billion monkeys with a billion typewriters for a billion years....
How many trillions of trillions of complex carbon molecules existed on Earth for the half billions years, before life started?

Zosimus wrote:. .....hoping that it would come up heads 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in a row, doing so once a second every second from the time of the Big Bang until now... then it still wouldn't have happened. It's just too improbable.
That's for our form of life, to arise, that we see in our universal environment. How many other parameter combinations could have allowed for other forms of life to arise unique to their own parameters. You forgot that didn't you?

I have to ask. Do know what the theory of evolution is and how species evolve to match the environment? Please set out your knowledge on this, in your own words. :lol:

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Zosimus wrote: it seems that what you are saying is that theories that are supported by evidence are better than theories that are unsupported by evidence.
Yes.

Please donate $100 to the Skeptic Society, with evidence you have done so, before we continue tutoring you in basic logic. :lol:

So basically you have no evidence to support your claim that claims with evidence are better.

That's what we call a self-refuting argument. Personally, when it comes to the value of evidence... I'm skeptical.

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Poor logic skills by Zosimus
In essence, Zosimus has made the basic logic mistake of assuming the only forms of life that can exist are the forms of life we see today, as a result of the actual environment that life, we know of, has arisen.

Zosimus wrote:. Since there are 200 known parameters, each of which must be set to within a narrow band, the odds seem somewhat against it.
So if the parameters were different, you are denying that a different form of life could have arisen, in all variations of those same parameters? How did you conclude that?

I didn't conclude anything. I paraphrased the argument made in the video. Try to keep up.

Zosimus wrote:. the universe, we have some 200 variables that seem remarkably well adjusted.
Try again son. You are saying the obvious and ignoring the logical conclusion, that the life forms that evolved today in our universe's parameters is unique to those parameters. That doesn't mean a universe with different parameters won't allow for another sort of life to arise in that unique environment.

Again, I am merely paraphrasing the argument made in the video. However, I think that your "logic" (if we can call it that) is pretty laughable. Since it's not completely impossible that some sort of life could have come about with different parameters... then, it's certain that life would have come about with different parameters.

Hey! I like that logic. Let's try this... since it's not completely impossible that I'm right then, according to your screwed up logic, it's certain that I'm right!

Zosimus wrote:.Well, what if you had a billion monkeys with a billion typewriters for a billion years....
How many trillions of trillions of complex carbon molecules existed on Earth for the half billions years, before life started?

First of all, this is an argument about whether the universe is fine tuned for life. This includes such things as the forces of physics being fine-tuned for life as we know it. So, basically, I don't see what the number of carbon molecules on Earth has to do with anything. Unless, of course, you're trying to prove that you cannot follow a simple argument.

Zosimus wrote:. .....hoping that it would come up heads 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in a row, doing so once a second every second from the time of the Big Bang until now... then it still wouldn't have happened. It's just too improbable.
That's for our form of life, to arise, that we see in our universal environment. How many other parameter combinations could have allowed for other forms of life to arise unique to their own parameters. You forgot that didn't you?

No, I didn't forget that. Those other parameter combinations are pure speculation on your part. Do you have any reason (other than wishful thinking) for believing that such other combinations exist and are viable? No? I thought not.

I have to ask. Do know what the theory of evolution is and how species evolve to match the environment? Please set out your knowledge on this, in your own words. :lol:

Well, the theory of biological evolution can be precisely defined as the theory that the frequency of alleles varies from generation to generation. What does this have to do with for example, the argument by Martin Rees that epsilon, the measure of efficiency of conversion of hydrogen into helium is 0.007 and his calculations that if it were 0.006 then hydrogen wouldn't fuse into helium at all whereas if it were 0.008 then all the hydrogen would have fused into helium during the Big Bang? Nothing at all? Okay, that's what I thought.

This brings us back to your argument about trillions of carbon molecules on the Earth before the time that science figures life arose. Obviously, if epsilon had been different, and hydrogen had never been able to fuse into helium, then there wouldn't have been any carbon atoms on the Earth before the advent of life.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:04 am

Zosimus wrote: it seems that what you are saying is that theories that are supported by evidence are better than theories that are unsupported by evidence.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Yes.
Please donate $100 to the Skeptic Society, with evidence you have done so, before we continue tutoring you in basic logic. :lol:
Zosimus wrote: So basically you have no evidence to support your claim that claims with evidence are better.
No. I clearly said, you needed to make a donation to allow our education of you to continue. I guess as a Peruvian, you are struggling with basic English language. Try reading this book and educate yourself. I'm guessing from your previous posts you will need a good tutor. :lol:
spanish english children's book.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:43 am

Zosimus wrote: I didn't conclude anything.
No one here thinks that you could. :lol:

Matthew Ellard wrote:Try again son. You are saying the obvious and ignoring the logical conclusion, that the life forms that evolved today in our universe's parameters is unique to those parameters. That doesn't mean a universe with different parameters won't allow for another sort of life to arise in that unique environment.
Zosimus wrote: I think that your "logic" (if we can call it that) is pretty laughable.
That's because it's way over your basic education level. We already know that.

If you were able to write a rebuttal you would have done so,
:lol:

Zosimus wrote: Let's try this... since it's not completely impossible that I'm right then, according to your screwed up logic, it's certain that I'm right!
Errr no... I'm obviously going too fast for you. Would it help if I explained it to you using hand puppets? :lol:

Zosimus wrote:First of all, this is an argument about whether the universe is fine tuned for life.
Is that, life evolved for the unique parameters of our universe or alternative forms of life that evolved for other universes where the parameters are different? You seen to be struggling with that basic concept again. Have you considered hiring a logic coach to help you understand this? :lol:

Zosimus wrote:So, basically, I don't see what the number of carbon molecules on Earth has to do with anything.
There were more complex carbon molecules on Earth and were so, for half a billion years before abiogenesis commenced, than your million monkeys typing for a million years. It's pretty obvious you don't understand basic mathematics or basic logic . :lol: :

Matthew Ellard wrote: That's for our form of life, to arise, that we see in our universal environment. How many other parameter combinations could have allowed for other forms of life to arise unique to their own parameters. You forgot that didn't you?
Zosimus wrote: No, I didn't forget that.
Yes you did. Read your own posts and weep.

Zosimus wrote:Those other parameter combinations are pure speculation on your part.
Nope. Gravity can vary and an alternative form of life can evolve. Oxygen need not be a corrosive and an alternative form of life could arise. Carbon need not even exist and an alternative form of life can arise and so on and so on.


Matthew Ellard wrote:I have to ask. Do know what the theory of evolution is and how species evolve to match the environment? Please set out your knowledge on this, in your own words. :lol:
Zosimus wrote: Well, the theory of biological evolution can be precisely defined as the theory that the frequency of alleles varies from generation to generation. What does this have to do with for example, the argument by Martin Rees that epsilon, the measure of efficiency of conversion of hydrogen into helium is 0.007 and his calculations that if it were 0.006 then hydrogen wouldn't fuse into helium at all whereas if it were 0.008 then all the hydrogen would have fused into helium during the Big Bang? Nothing at all? Okay, that's what I thought.
I said "evolve to match the environment" and you got confused again. You have simply described alternative environments to our universe and pretended forget that alternative forms of life may evolve in those different parameters.

Sooooo....you don't know what the theory of evolution is. You can't do basic mathematics. You can't follow simple logic. That's very funny.

I assume you religiously believe in intelligent design?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:43 am

double post.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28207
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Gord » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:30 am

Zosimus wrote:What we have here is a bunch of people sitting around congratulating themselves on their fine logic in a big pseudo-circle jerk.

You should join a different circle jerk then.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28207
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Gord » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:43 am

Zosimus wrote:Furthermore, what logical reason do you have to suppose that evidence can support a belief?

Let T = the theory of "T" and E = the evidence.

If T is true, then E will be observed.
E has been observed.
So you conclude that T is supported by the evidence.

Belief is irrelevant. Instead, see falsifiability.

Or, to put it in the same terms you used:

If T is true, then E will not be observed.
E has been observed.
So you conclude that T is not supported by the evidence.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9201
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:40 am

The easiest way to look at ttthe fine tuning 'problem' is to recognise that our universe is almost certainly not the only one. At least three separate approaches in physics predict a multiverse. Superstrong theory predicts E500 universes. Cosmological inflation predicts a finite bu extraordinarily large number of universes. The 'many worlds' view of quantum physics predicts an almost infinity of universes.

That means we simply live in one of the universes that happen to be suitable for life.

User avatar
Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Nobrot » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:16 am

Zosimus wrote:... Meanwhile, I took a standardized critical reasoning test and scored 100 percent.
...


Image

Edit: Ninja'd by Matthew.
Last edited by Nobrot on Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17997
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:17 am

:rotfl:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17997
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:20 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The easiest way to look at the fine tuning 'problem' is to recognise that our universe is almost certainly not the only one. At least three separate approaches in physics predict a multiverse. Superstrong theory predicts E500 universes. Cosmological inflation predicts a finite but extraordinarily large number of universes. The 'many worlds' view of quantum physics predicts an almost infinity of universes.

That means we simply live in one of the universes that happen to be suitable for life.

:hmm: Sometimes one recalls the simpler times...

"One day, possibly even in the not very distant future, it may be possible to travel to the Moon, or even to Venus and Mars," Churchill wrote...

:-P

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28207
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Gord » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:47 pm

Zosimus wrote:...Third, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?...

Zosimus wrote:...Meanwhile, I took a standardized critical reasoning test and scored 100 percent....

Are you a Poe?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:59 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Zosimus wrote: it seems that what you are saying is that theories that are supported by evidence are better than theories that are unsupported by evidence.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Yes.
Please donate $100 to the Skeptic Society, with evidence you have done so, before we continue tutoring you in basic logic. :lol:
Zosimus wrote: So basically you have no evidence to support your claim that claims with evidence are better.
No. I clearly said, you needed to make a donation to allow our education of you to continue. I guess as a Peruvian, you are struggling with basic English language. Try reading this book and educate yourself. I'm guessing from your previous posts you will need a good tutor. :lol:
spanish english children's book.jpg

This from a guy who thinks that "Try reading this book and educate yourself" is a correct English sentence.

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:25 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Zosimus wrote: I didn't conclude anything.
No one here thinks that you could. :lol:
<snip>

Since the majority of your post is just ad hominem attacks, I'm going to cut all of that out in search for some semblance of a logical argument.

Nope. Gravity can vary and an alternative form of life can evolve.

Prove it.

Oxygen need not be a corrosive and an alternative form of life could arise. Carbon need not even exist and an alternative form of life can arise and so on and so on.

Again, all of this is pure speculation.

You have simply described alternative environments to our universe and pretended forget that alternative forms of life may evolve in those different parameters. [/color]

Go ahead and explain how you think life could have evolved in a universe in which fusion didn't occur.

[color=#000080]Sooooo....you don't know what the theory of evolution is. You can't do basic mathematics.

Actually, yes, I can do mathematics. In fact, I imagine that I can do so far better than you can. In fact, let's try a little bit of basic math.



Here we have Bayes Theorem. This allows us to calculate the a posteriori probability of something in light of evidence found that tends to confirm it (or not).

Let H = the hypothesis that the universe was fine-tuned and O = the observation that epsilon is 0.007.
What we want to calculate is the probability of the hypothesis given the observation [Pr(H|O)]. To do so, we will need the a priori probability of the hypothesis, the probability of the observation given the hypothesis and the probability of the observation itself.

The principle of maximum entropy suggests that we should give Pr(H) as 0.5, so we'll go with that. the Pr(O|H) is 1. But what's the probability of the evidence? Here's where things get a little tricky.

What are the chances that epsilon will be 0.007 if the fine-tuning hypothesis is false? Theoretically, it could be any number. However, I'm going to bend over backward to be fair to you. We're only going to consider the possibilities 0.006, 0.007, and 0.008. In light of that, we can see that if the hypothesis is false, epsilon could still turn out to be 0.007 one third of the time just by chance.

With these numbers, we can assemble our formula. Pr(H|O) = (0.5)(1)÷((0.5)(1)+(0.5)(0.3333)) = 0.5÷(0.5+0.1665) = 0.5÷0.6665 and that's 75%

So, the Probability of the Fine-Tuning Hypothesis in light of the observation has risen substantially. Remember that this is only one of the 200 constants that proponents of the hypothesis theorize have been fine tuned. So you can :lol: all you want, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation has the numbers against you.

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:27 pm

Gord wrote:Belief is irrelevant. Instead, see falsifiability.

Or, to put it in the same terms you used:

If T is true, then E will not be observed.
E has been observed.
So you conclude that T is not supported by the evidence.

Another fine example of refutation by agreement.

So you admit, therefore, that evidence is not required to advance any kind of hypothesis? That the only criterion for scientific hypotheses is whether the argument in question is falsifiable?

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:30 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The easiest way to look at ttthe fine tuning 'problem' is to recognise that our universe is almost certainly not the only one. At least three separate approaches in physics predict a multiverse. Superstrong theory predicts E500 universes. Cosmological inflation predicts a finite bu extraordinarily large number of universes. The 'many worlds' view of quantum physics predicts an almost infinity of universes.

That means we simply live in one of the universes that happen to be suitable for life.

This is a facetious argument. It could easily be turned against you.

Let's imagine that the probability of God is so extremely low that it fits a Richard Dawkins scenario. Let's say that the probability of God is 0.001. Yet remember that physics postulates a large number of universes. Accordingly, God was certain to have occurred in at least one of those universes. Unsurprisingly, we find ourselves in one of the universes in which God occurred. It may seem surprising, but it's just the anthropic principle.

Zosimus
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Zosimus » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:36 pm

Gord wrote:Are you a Poe?

Poe's Law states that it is impossible to parody a Creationist in such an extreme way that someone will not mistake the parody for the genuine article.

However, since I have never argued for Creationism (or any other -ism) here, the law doesn't apply to me at all. As a point in fact, I am agnostic. The data are insufficient to make a decision one way or the other.

User avatar
Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Nobrot » Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:38 pm

Zosimus wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:The easiest way to look at ttthe fine tuning 'problem' is to recognise that our universe is almost certainly not the only one. At least three separate approaches in physics predict a multiverse. Superstrong theory predicts E500 universes. Cosmological inflation predicts a finite bu extraordinarily large number of universes. The 'many worlds' view of quantum physics predicts an almost infinity of universes.

That means we simply live in one of the universes that happen to be suitable for life.

This is a facetious argument. It could easily be turned against you.

Let's imagine that the probability of God is so extremely low that it fits a Richard Dawkins scenario. Let's say that the probability of God is 0.001. Yet remember that physics postulates a large number of universes. Accordingly, God was certain to have occurred in at least one of those universes. Unsurprisingly, we find ourselves in one of the universes in which God occurred. It may seem surprising, but it's just the anthropic principle.

Postulate:
A statement accepted as true for the purposes of argument or scientific investigation;

Physics postulates no such thing. Do you mean cosmology? If so, you're still wrong.
It's conjecture, nothing more.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9201
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:58 pm

To Zosimus

Re God in a multiverse.

Your logic is correct, but let me point out something.
If there is an infinity of universe, then some kind of god must be present in some of them. But it will not be the God that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in. That god is omnipotent, and must therefore be in all universes.

Instead, we must look again at our definition of what a god is. Even in our own universe, there may be the equivalent of gods. There are possibly about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems in our own universe. It seems probable that there is intelligent life, and possibly numerous forms of intelligent life elsewhere. But it is also very likely that such life is utterly out of reach, due to the light speed barrier, and the expansion of the universe. If some such intelligent life forms have gained sufficient power, they may be god-like from the human perspective. But that does not matter a damn, since they are out of reach.

This is even more true for an infinite multiverse. If an intelligent being that is god-like in power is unable to affect our lives in any way, then from the human perspective, they are the equivalent of non deities.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:49 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Oxygen need not be a corrosive and an alternative form of life could arise. Carbon need not even exist and an alternative form of life can arise and so on and so on. [/color]
Zosimus wrote: Again, all of this is pure speculation.


Zosimus? You walked straight into a trap All life on Earth was anaerobic. (Didn't breathe oxygen). Oxygen breathing life only evolved with mitochondria. You should read Stephen Gould's Eight little piggies
before attempting to post again.


This was too easy. It is obvious you, Zosimus, have little basic education and know nothing about the evolution of life on Earth. Additionally as you are probably religious and probably don't believe in evolution, it was obvious you didn't have a clue about all the previous life forms that evolved on Earth.

Let me really rub salt into your wounds of ignorance .


"The Zosimus Hypothesis for a designed universe"
Zosimus, like a good scientist is now going to set out his detailed hypothesis for a designed universe and then all his evidence that supports that hypothesis.


This should be very very funny,

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:49 pm

Double post

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:59 pm

Zosimus wrote:Let's imagine that the probability of God is so extremely low that it fits a Richard Dawkins scenario.
Baby steps Zosimus, baby steps. :lol:

Before you start calculating the probability of "X" you need to define what "X" actually is. You are not saying God is a old white bearded bloke, from the Old Testament, with magical powers. You have a more magical God in mind don't you?

Set out all the powers of your "God" so we can compare them to the actual evidence. Here, let me help you get started
:lol:

1) "God" is able to exist in a singularity and maintain the ability to change the singularity to form in such a way as to allow life on Earth to evolve 10 billion years later.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25568
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:59 pm

More Bad logic from Zosimus
Zosimus appears to be claiming that a magical god of some sort fine tuned the universe so that life could appear in it.

So why was there a ten billion year delay before life started on Earth?

Even more obvious, why is there only one planet in our solar system with liquid water?

Is "god" so incompetent that he made it almost impossible for life to start?
:lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28207
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Gord » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:43 am

Zosimus wrote:This from a guy who thinks that "Try reading this book and educate yourself" is a correct English sentence.

It is. A similarly constructed sentence might read, "Try shovelling snow and get some light bulbs from the attic." Another one might read, "Try eating apples and buy me some shoes."

Zosimus wrote:
Gord wrote:Belief is irrelevant. Instead, see falsifiability.

Or, to put it in the same terms you used:

If T is true, then E will not be observed.
E has been observed.
So you conclude that T is not supported by the evidence.

Another fine example of refutation by agreement.

I wasn't attempting to refute you, only to provide a clearer understanding of the use of science.

So you admit, therefore, that evidence is not required to advance any kind of hypothesis? That the only criterion for scientific hypotheses is whether the argument in question is falsifiable?

Not exactly. Evidence is often used to falsify an hypothesis. In those situations, the evidence is required. If it is impossible to find evidence that can falsify an hypothesis, then that hypothesis may not be considered scientific.

Read about the phallacy of unfalsifiablility: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ifiability

Example #1:

I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus. Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment.

Explanation: While it may actually be a fact that tiny, invisible, mythological creatures are occupying this person’s opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal, it is a theory that is constructed so it cannot be falsified in any way; therefore, should not be seriously considered without significant evidence....

...Exception: All unfalsifiable claims are not fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable. As long as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, it could be a legitimate form of reasoning.

Tip: Never assume you must be right simply because you can’t be proven wrong.


Zosimus wrote:
Gord wrote:Are you a Poe?

Poe's Law states that it is impossible to parody a Creationist in such an extreme way that someone will not mistake the parody for the genuine article.

However, since I have never argued for Creationism (or any other -ism) here, the law doesn't apply to me at all. As a point in fact, I am agnostic. The data are insufficient to make a decision one way or the other.

Poe's Law can be extrapolated to other purposes. In fact, if you've read the wikipedia article to which I had link, you will have seen that the first sentence reads: "Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views."

But even if it couldn't be used in any way except to describe someone arguing for creationism, it would still apply to you as this discussion began about a creationist video. You supplied an argument in support of it using a creationist talking point about "Borel's Law" which is not an actual law but is merely based on the misinterpretation (intentional or otherwise) of a statement from Borel which has been taken out of context and does not mean what creationists claim it means.
Last edited by Gord on Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28207
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Gord » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:58 am

Zosimus wrote:Here we have Bayes Theorem. This allows us to calculate the a posteriori probability of something in light of evidence found that tends to confirm it (or not).

Try it with a deck of cards. Take a deck of 52 cards and deal them out. Record the order in which they appeared. Having determined the order in which you have dealt out all 52 cards, can you use Bayes' Theorem to calculate the probability that it happened without divine intervention? I'm curious to see how that would be done.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Phoenix76 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:42 am

So the Universe wasn't an Accident. Okay, there has been quite varied discussion here, but does it come up with a definitive answer to the question of who/what caused the Universe. Certainly not to me.

Physicists and Scientists have come up with very strong arguments to support the Big Bang Theory. Nobody that I can see has come up with any strong and logical argument that God did it.

I don't believe in God or any other deity, however, IF somebody ever came up with "proof" then I would read and listen. The other side of the coin, that God does not exist, can't be proven either. You can't prove that something doesn't exist.

Our friend, Zosimus, poses the question as to whether we are really skeptical. I can understand his question as I have read a number of threads on this forum that really do seem like "nod-in-unison". According to the Collins Dictionary I have in front of me, the definition of a Skeptic is 1. "A person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs. 2. a person who mistrusts people or ideas in general. From the Greek skeptikos - one who reflects upon.

Of course there are various definitions of a skeptic, but to me, a skeptic is one who does accept lore unless it is proven, but who will keep an open mind on the subject. And we shouldn't ram our opinions down others throats - the dogmatic skeptic. We must respect the fact that people have beliefs and could take a lot of swaying to change their mind.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 18770
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:56 pm

Zosimus wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Zosimus wrote: it seems that what you are saying is that theories that are supported by evidence are better than theories that are unsupported by evidence.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Yes.
Please donate $100 to the Skeptic Society, with evidence you have done so, before we continue tutoring you in basic logic. :lol:
Zosimus wrote: So basically you have no evidence to support your claim that claims with evidence are better.
No. I clearly said, you needed to make a donation to allow our education of you to continue. I guess as a Peruvian, you are struggling with basic English language. Try reading this book and educate yourself. I'm guessing from your previous posts you will need a good tutor. :lol:
spanish english children's book.jpg

This from a guy who thinks that "Try reading this book and educate yourself" is a correct English sentence.

Do, or do not. There is no try.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9201
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:51 pm

Phoenix

Check the wiki reference to "scientific skeptic" .
That is the kind I am. What are you ?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10133
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:59 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Zosimus wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Zosimus wrote: it seems that what you are saying is that theories that are supported by evidence are better than theories that are unsupported by evidence.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Yes.
Please donate $100 to the Skeptic Society, with evidence you have done so, before we continue tutoring you in basic logic. :lol:
Zosimus wrote: So basically you have no evidence to support your claim that claims with evidence are better.
No. I clearly said, you needed to make a donation to allow our education of you to continue. I guess as a Peruvian, you are struggling with basic English language. Try reading this book and educate yourself. I'm guessing from your previous posts you will need a good tutor. :lol:
spanish english children's book.jpg

This from a guy who thinks that "Try reading this book and educate yourself" is a correct English sentence.

Do, or do not. There is no try.


Only because Yoda never played rugby. . . . at least, not well. . .
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:05 pm

Poodle wrote:I hope God's existence is soon to be proved - thus establishing once and for all the reality of instantaneous travel anywhere in the universe and beyond (or, failing that, the existence of the Electronic Thumb), real magic (a nod in Terry's direction), universal translation devices (yes - the Babel Fish) and, no doubt, the Celestial Civil Service aka the Vogon Constructor Fleet.

Presumably, your logic follows Adams' argument re: proving the existence of god? POOF! You freddled gruntbuggly, you.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:08 pm

Kevin Levites wrote:If God's existence is proven, then why have need of curiosity?

Personally, I agree we wouldn't need curiosity...at first. First, we would need pitchforks and torches like a proper lynch mob.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 18770
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:11 pm

LunaNik wrote:
Kevin Levites wrote:If God's existence is proven, then why have need of curiosity?

Personally, I agree we wouldn't need curiosity...at first. First, we would need pitchforks and torches like a proper lynch mob.

Image
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:22 pm

Zosimus wrote:
Poodle wrote:He also needs to look up Borel's Law ...
Here - this'll do ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Borel's_Law

... which has this pertinent comment:
"In order for you to exist, your parents had to have sex exactly at a given time. One particular sperm cell had to fertilize one particular egg. Taking this back only a few generations we quickly reach the limit of Borel's "law". You, Sir, are therefore impossible."

Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is false dichotomy. Your argument, bluntly put, is that either someone occurred purely by chance or someone could not have occurred at all.

Given that the point of this whole thread is to determine whether some unknown entity may have had some hand in the matter, (God, Allah, Zeus, Woden, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you name it) the above-mentioned thread of logic actually serves quite well as a demonstration that some other factor might well have been involved.

Since the odds against your existence are astronomically large, yet you exist, there might be some other factor involved. Something like "design" or "supernatural intervention" or "an infinite improbability device."

I found this amusing.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5965
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Universe Wasn't An Accident

Postby Flash » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:15 am

Zosimus wrote:
Since the odds against your existence are astronomically large, yet you exist, there might be some other factor involved. Something like "design" or "supernatural intervention" or "an infinite improbability device."

You got it from Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It's a comedy science fiction you know?
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest